Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not a surprising story, I wonder what policy changes they'd like to see happen to address the issue. It has been substantially reported and discussed the past few years, and I don't think it is a surprise to read this today.
Increasing the savings rate a little wouldn't really fix the problem, instead of instantly being poor the unfortunate individuals would still end up being poor just a few years later.
The equivalent of government managed retirement accounts (both new and current) has been brought up to Congress several times over the past few years.
Congress, DOL and the latest agency is the Consumer Protection Agency.
The DOL had the longest one..a 3 day hearing.
So far it's not gone beyond talk.
All of the talks center around the government managing your money for you and in turn guaranteeing you an annuity when you retire. Sounds like Social Security II doesn't it ?
California actually went a little further than talk and is implementing it. CA is waiting on approval from the IRS which is expected next year.
A mandatory 3% is deducted from your paycheck and the state will invest it and guarantee to supplement your SS with it. http://www.epi.org/publication/pm193...ational-model/
The equivalent of government managed retirement accounts (both new and current) has been brought up to Congress several times over the past few years.
Congress, DOL and the latest agency is the Consumer Protection Agency.
The DOL had the longest one..a 3 day hearing.
So far it's not gone beyond talk.
All of the talks center around the government managing your money for you and in turn guaranteeing you an annuity when you retire. Sounds like Social Security II doesn't it ?
California actually went a little further than talk and is implementing it. CA is waiting on approval from the IRS which is expected next year.
A mandatory 3% is deducted from your paycheck and the state will invest it and guarantee to supplement your SS with it. California retirement plan could serve as a national model | Economic Policy Institute
OK, what this program appears to do is mandate a 3% employee (only) contribution unless someone decides proactively to opt out of this program.
I wonder if this would really result in additional savings, or just a shift in current savings. According to the linked chart below, we recently had a national savings rate of 4.3%, which matches up pretty accurately with the average personal savings rate the past 20 years.
I love it sneers of doom and gloom when faced with a tiny bit of reality
Is this the Disney channel?
We r out of money friend
retirement is what u set aside $$
In this case instead of setting aside money they gave it to the kids
However, when President Bush started to really put effort into explaining his plan of " privatizing" SS, the more he explained , the more it dropped in the polls !
It was mentioned by many that retirement financial sustainability was/is the responsibility of the individual, and for the most part that remains true for most of us. But on closer scrutiny we see the historic forms of retirement systems to be a relatively new idea. My Grandfather had no real retirement plan, a Montana cowpuncher he worked as an itinerant for most of his days. My dad was one of the first to get a defined pension benefit ( a contractual amount of $$) that allowed him to stop at 65, I retired at 62 and have both a defined pension and a 401k. My children however, will have neither
So, the notion of retirement and it's short lived life were only there because people demanded a share in their productivity that was greater than the wages they received, something akin to the company's own equity accumulation. Sharing was the key element in the proposal for retirement plans demanded by most unions.
Yeah, I know these kinds of ideas smack of some kind of terrible socialism to some but the truth is that all that retirement benefit money is now being spent by me and millions of others in our country, we travel, eat out, buy vehicles, furniture, help our children, our grandchildren, and charities, so, what would this economy look like without all those expenditures? From reading the various posts here on CD I've gotten the impression that many posters are doing fine financially, for that I'm glad, but we have to acknowledge the fact that many of our countrymen are dead set against having any decent wages paid to those without high tech skills, and worse yet, these folks are also against having a government distributed wealth factor that encourages more consumption for those whose spending has become a mainstay revenue stream for so many of our biggest businesses..
I don't think the SS system is going away but the dollars paid out have less and less buying power and that IS a problem for all of us. We have a real polarization of ideas in America with regard to the general welfare of the majority of our citizens, and like those foreign nations that have a two tier economy, we too will suffer the consequences of a less than fair distribution of wealth....
Roughly half of all U.S. families have no money set aside for retirement, Federal Reserve data show. Not a cent. But even that alarming savings deficit doesn't fully capture the emerging socioeconomic crisis facing what is, after all, a rapidly graying nation.
It all depends on your decisions on what is important.
Quote:
Originally Posted by newenglandgirl
I honestly don't get the attitude of so many who insist that people who don't get ahead by "saving" are irresponsible fools. Many, many people "save" but have to use those savings on children, aging parents, education, car and home repair, insurances, moving, job loss and emergencies, and healthcare. And so many are not making that much money to begin with. Seems this attitude is seriously skewed toward those with the ability for great income sources. The assumption that everyone can "save for retirement" and never have to spend those savings beforehand is just simply not so across America and in countries all over the world.
That's why I wrote "decisions on what is important". And I didn't call anyone irresponsible fools.
I consider children a expensive choice. And it's a choice I made to not have any. It helps that I don't even like children.
Most of these "studies" count 401k amounts, not wealth.
Technically that way I have no savings, when I'm worth over my peers...
Just a thought.
i gave up paying attention to these so called studies that predict what our wealth is long ago. there are no accurate ,comprehensive studies done on all of us .
all that is important is how you are doing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
